You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Premises are the building blocks of every argument. They are the reasons, evidence, and grounds that the author offers in support of their conclusion. While the main conclusion is the destination of an argument, premises are the foundation — without them, the conclusion is unsupported. LNAT questions test your ability to identify premises, distinguish them from other argument components, and understand how they function within the argument.
A premise is any claim that is offered as a reason to accept another claim (the conclusion). Premises answer the question: "Why should I believe the conclusion?"
| Element | Role in the Argument | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Premise | Provides a reason to accept the conclusion | "Countries with universal healthcare have lower infant mortality rates." |
| Conclusion | The claim the premises support | "The UK should adopt universal healthcare." |
Premises come in several forms:
| Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Factual premise | A verifiable statement of fact | "The UK prison population has doubled in the past 30 years." |
| Statistical premise | A numerical claim based on data | "Reoffending rates stand at 48% for those given short custodial sentences." |
| Expert premise | An appeal to authoritative sources | "The World Health Organisation recommends that countries invest 5% of GDP in healthcare." |
| Evaluative premise | A value judgement offered as a reason | "Every child deserves access to high-quality education regardless of family income." |
| Analogical premise | A comparison used to support the conclusion | "Just as we regulate the pharmaceutical industry to protect consumers, we should regulate social media to protect users." |
| Conditional premise | An if-then claim | "If we do not act on climate change now, the costs of adaptation will be catastrophically higher." |
Authors frequently signal premises with specific words and phrases:
| Indicator | Example |
|---|---|
| Because | "Because reoffending rates remain stubbornly high..." |
| Since | "Since the evidence clearly shows..." |
| Given that | "Given that the current system has failed..." |
| As | "As research demonstrates..." |
| For | "For the economy depends on a healthy workforce." |
| The reason is | "The reason is that early intervention is more effective." |
| The evidence shows | "The evidence shows that community sentences reduce reoffending." |
| Research demonstrates | "Research demonstrates a clear link between poverty and poor health." |
| Studies indicate | "Studies indicate that diverse juries reach better-reasoned verdicts." |
| One reason is | "One reason is the dramatic rise in housing costs." |
| A further consideration is | "A further consideration is the impact on mental health." |
| It is worth noting that | "It is worth noting that no other European country has adopted this approach." |
Important: Not every premise has an indicator word. Many premises are simply stated as assertions within the passage. If a claim supports the conclusion but has no indicator word, it is still a premise.
Understanding how premises function helps you answer LNAT questions about the role of specific claims.
Independent premises each support the conclusion on their own. If one premise were removed, the others would still provide some support:
"The death penalty should be abolished. It is irreversible, meaning wrongful executions cannot be corrected. It has no proven deterrent effect. And it is applied disproportionately to ethnic minorities and the poor."
Each premise — irreversibility, lack of deterrence, disproportionate application — independently supports abolition. Removing one does not destroy the argument; it merely weakens it.
Linked premises work together — they must be combined to support the conclusion. Neither premise is sufficient on its own:
"All citizens should have equal access to justice. Legal aid cuts have made access dependent on ability to pay. Therefore, legal aid cuts are unjust."
A question that asks "Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?" is targeting the premises. If the premises are independent, you need to undermine the strongest one. If the premises are linked, undermining either one weakens the argument significantly.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.